African legal body defies the vultures
27 September 2010 | By James Swift
Related Articles
DLA Piper brings vulture fund down to earth with Zambian debt reduction
30 April 2007
Split decision
23 July 2007
DLA Piper wins third world debt fight with vulture fund
15 February 2007
The bar
26 February 2007
Dechert targeted by protesters over representation of vulture funds
25 February 2010
In investment circles they are known as distressed debt funds or specialist situation funds - to everyone else they are vulture funds.

Coumba Doucoure Ngalani
Such vehicles buy up sovereign debt at bargain rates and then sue the debtor for the full amount plus interest charges and legal fees.
In 2007, in one of the most high-profile vulture fund cases, British Virgin Islands fund Donegal International attempted to sue the Zambian government for around $55m (£35m) for a $15m debt it had bought from the Romanian government for around $3.3m. The High Court awarded Donegal $15.5m.
At least 54 companies are known to have brought these kinds of actions, suing the world’s 12 poorest nations for a total of more than £1.2bn.
There are arguments made in favour of vulture funds: that the funds are a necessary part of the financial ecosystem, and that repeatedly forgiving debt only serves to prop up incompetent or corrupt governments.
But even if you ignore the rights and wrongs, gaping inequalities exist when debtor countries try to defend themselves.
Indebted countries cannot afford to hire the same quality of lawyers as the vulture funds can and cases rarely take place on the debtor country’s home turf - the loan agreements are usually governed by UK or US law and actions brought in London or New York. There are even instances of the debtor country going to court without having seen the transfer agreement between the original creditor and the vulture fund.
But one organisation is trying to redress this imbalance. The African Legal Support Facility (ALSF) is seeking to arm poor countries facing vulture funds with the expert lawyers needed to fight them. The Tunis-based organisation was created under an initiative of the African Development Bank and African finance ministers in 2003, becoming operational in March 2010.
“It’s not a question of being for or against vulture funds,” says ALSF legal counsel Coumba Doucoure Ngalani. “It’s about sending out the message that African states have access to good lawyers too.”
The ALSF is funded by contributions from the African Development Bank, its member countries and non-members too. In total it has 45 members, made up of 42 countries and three organisations.
As well as helping regional member countries (RMCs) address litigation brought by vulture funds, the facility has two other mandates: to help RMCs access technical legal advice when negotiating complex commercial transactions, especially those relating to natural resources, and to help build legal knowledge and capacity in Africa by organising seminars and workshops with legal experts.
Since it started working on cases in March the ALSF has had 15 requests. One is a project helping Djibouti - a small country on the horn of Africa, bordering Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somalia - renegotiate port concessions by procuring international law firms to advise the government so as to stop it getting a raw deal.
Another project is helping the Addis Ababa-based Pan-African Lawyers’ Union organise seminars across the continent to get international lawyers to share their knowledge on complex commercial agreements.
ALSF has a small technical staff and Doucoure Ngalani is one of only three lawyers, the other two being Portuguese- and New York-qualified, respectively. Ngalani says the ASLF needs more personnel, but adds that finding lawyers with the appropriate international profile can be hard.
Before joining the organisation Doucoure Ngalani spent four years in the capital markets department of Allen & Overy, which represented Donegal in its claim against Zambia, billing £1.7m.
“Working in an international organisation is a different world from private practice. You need to analyse every aspect of a situation and take into account a variety of interests before making any decision,” explains Doucoure Ngalani. “And now I’m working with governments I can really see the difference - you can’t deal with governments the way you do with private practice clients.”
Doucoure Ngalani says the response from law firms has been extremely positive, with lawyers clamouring to get involved. And with top firms on board, there is every chance that the organisation can turn the tables on vulture funds, even if it is just once or twice.
“If we can at least win one or two cases,” stresses Doucoure Ngalani, “that would be a great victory and show that having good lawyers and instructing good international law firms can help.”


Readers' comments (8)
Anonymous | 27-Sep-2010 5:07 pm
"Indebted countries cannot afford to hire the same quality of lawyers as the vulture funds can".
Interesting. Is this a suggestion that national lawyers in Africa are substandard in comparison to their UK equivalents? Perhaps the Law Society is right to consider amendments to the Transfer Test..
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harvey K | 27-Sep-2010 7:34 pm
Read the article anonymous 5:07 pm. Some of the cases / Most of them in fact are brought before US or UK courts which makes law firms from those juridictions more equipped to fight against those claims in their home turf ...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Herve | 27-Sep-2010 11:24 pm
This would actually level the playing field and may in time make this asset class not as lucrative for funds and their counterparts / allies in Africa ...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27-Sep-2010 11:26 pm
Well written and very fair assesment of the vulture funds activities ...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
titus | 28-Sep-2010 2:43 pm
I fail to see what this has to do with the Transfer Test. These cases are often complex, involving complex transactions and mostly governed by a law (English or NY) other than the law of the host state. So, just because many national lawyers cannot handle these cases does not make them substandard; nor are high street lawyers in the UK who are also not equipped to handle these type of cases sub-standard either.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28-Sep-2010 4:32 pm
The figure cited of $1.2 bn is five years old. Yesterday's news. All of those cases have been settled. Current litigation against SILIC's is primarily brought by original creditors who got stiffed, not investment funds. The funding being spent to assist debtor countries fight inevitable judgments on debts they properly owe is misguided and misspent... It is welfare for big law firms. Zambia was billed several million, all of which went to large UK law firms. The ADB would be much better off just funding legal training for legal staff at government ministries in Africa. And the debtor governments would be much better advised to settle with their creditors (original or otherwise) in local currency for investment quickly and at the steepest discount possible...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28-Sep-2010 11:33 pm
The case report for Donegal v Zambia [2007] EWHC 197 (Comm) is here:
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2007/197.html&query=donegal+and+zambia&method=boolean.
Zambia was represented by DLA Piper, and a team of *five* Counsel headed by William Blair QC (now Blair J) at the height of his eminence as a leading commercial Silk.
A rather one-sided article methinks.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rhubarb & Custard | 30-Sep-2010 9:34 am
Is that the sound of cynical laughter I hear? Allen & Overy making a nice little earner suing the Zambian people....whatever next? I knew all this talk from A&O about being a 'nice' firm was just cheesey PR - but, wow, this really shows how cynical a firm can be - sending out press releases about pro bono and community projects, but attacking poor countries for the meanest of all businesses. Not as if A&O partners really needed to take on such a job to feed their kids - I mean, this was at the peak of 2007 when this case came to court - hardly a period when A&O was short of work - yet it seems they still jumped at this one. So much for corporate responsibility. Excellent to see what a former A&O lawyer is now doing to help African countries to address this imbalance.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment